You should spend about 40 minutes on this task.
Students should pay the full cost of their own university studies, rather than have free higher education provided by the state. To what extent do you agree or disagree with this statement?
Give reasons for your answer and include any relevant examples from your own knowledge or experience.
You should write at least 250 words.
Sample Answer 1:
Free tertiary education has always sparks heated debates all over the world. I, personally, completely disagree that higher education cost should be born by students because that would prevent the waste of talent resource and also it is a form investment for the government in the long run.
When higher education comes with a cost, it creates an inefficient allocation of the human resource. This is because when there is a financial constraint, some students from the less privileged background are forced to choose the courses that either is not too costly or have good employability prospects and not necessarily courses that the students want most or are best at. As a result, for example, instead of being an excellent artist, the student can only be a mediocre accountant because he cannot utilise all his potential in his chosen field, causing a waste of talent; free higher education can prevent this problem.
The second reason why tertiary education should be free is because if the government chooses not to spend money on free education, they will see rising expenditures in other areas. For example, a less educated workforce bears a higher risk of unemployment in the economic downturn, and thus the government’s coffers for unemployment aid would need to increase. Furthermore, unskilled labour earns much less than college-educated people do, and thus they contribute less income tax i.e. less revenue for the government. Not to mention, the highly skilled population is essential to any country’s economic growth in the long run.
In conclusion, because free education allows students to learn what they enjoy most and are best at, it can ensure better allocation of the human resource. Furthermore, free education can reduce unemployment cost in the economic downturn, increase government’s tax revenue, and increase economic growth in the long run. Thus, I completely disagree that students should pay for their higher education.
[ Written by – Wynne Nguyen ]
Sample Answer 2:
Education is a possession which makes a person stand tall and high. It adds to the overall physical personality of the person and makes him stand apart and outshines others who don’t possess it. Education is an eternal rock which never withers, not even during the wild waves of evil. It is only education which makes people bow in front of the educated and is one of the moral fabrics of any country which binds the whole society into one nation.
It is due to this high pedestal which the education occupies that higher education must be provided by the State, albeit to those subjects of the state who are economically weak.
There are, however, two schools of thought. One school of thought is of the view that the cost of higher studies should be borne by the students themselves. However, in such a scenario, all those meritorious students who are unable to continue their education for want of money (read economic resources) would be left with no option but to get themselves tagged as ‘drop outs’ by the society, due to no fault of theirs. ‘No student should be left deprived of education’ must be one of the objectives (read fundamental duty) of every Nation/State.
On the other hand, a student who thrives for education must be wholeheartedly supported by the Nation/State. No stone must be left unturned to make available the most precious of the stones, i.e. the education, to the student. It is so because education is something which is dearer than the fine opals, more precious than emeralds!
There’ve been quite a lot instances in the recent past, and even now, wherein the entire cost of higher studies of a student is sponsored by the State. The recent example which supports this is the educational sponsorship which was provided by the state government of ABC (a country) to the son of a widower who earns her livelihood by cleaning utensils at a roadside restaurant.
It can thus be candidly concluded that education does elevate the horizon and encourages the mankind to labour at present for accruing enjoyment at a later stage in life. Consequently, the state must take responsibility, to a certain extent and for a certain set of individuals based on economic criteria to provide them with free higher education opportunities. This, in return, would only help the State/Nation to become independent and economically stable.
[ Written by – Neeraj Mehra ]